Replies

I there take is more along the lines of "there's a republican in office now, and if even if someone else takes it up, we will we argue in court that we aren't responsible for it". It does our cause no good at all to try and run a company out of business for the sins of it's former owners. The gun industry learned a valuable lesson out of all this. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Run that by any competent corporate lawyer and see if it floats. You buy a corporation, you buy the assets, liabilities, and contracts of that corporation, unless the previous owners agree to take on certain portions of it. A corporation is a legal entity unto itself, just like a person. Who owns it doesn't change what the corporation is obligated to do. Otherwise Owner 'A' of a corporation would just run up debt and sell it to owner 'b', who wouldn't be liable for the things owner 'A' did, but would still benefit from what owner 'A' built up.

That's what S&W is trying to do. Saf-T-Hammer (which isn't a very pro-gun outfit to begin with - look at their record of trying to further their gun-lock design at out expense) buys out tompkins at fire sale prices due to the boycott. They benefit from the agreement in a sort of twisted way. Now I would admire them if they had the guts to work with a lawyer to get this agreement dissolved like they did with boston, but they haven't. They've simply tried to constantly spin and deceive gun owners to get them to believe the agreement is gone. It isn't. For that alone they should be boycotted. I don't like being lied to about something that important.

The bath water is stale and the baby is a baby snake. Until S&W / saf-t-hammer starts respecting the 2nd amendment and gun owners, instead of merely making money off of them, the boycott still stands from my perspective. They haven't done anything honorable in regards to this agreement. I don't accept lying from a clinton, and I don't accept it from a gun company, either.